Recently on Cyclingnews.com

Letters to Cyclingnews - February 28, 2008

Here's your chance to get more involved with Cyclingnews. Comments and
criticism on current stories, races, coverage and anything cycling related are
welcomed, even pictures if you wish. Letters should be brief (less than 300
words), with the sender clearly identified. They may be edited for space and
clarity; please stick to one topic per letter. We will normally include your
name and place of residence, but not your email address unless you specify in
the message.

ASO vs. Astana

Everyone seems to be saying that ASO's decision to leave Astana out will cause
the sport to lose sponsors. That is true to some extent, but people seem to
forget that ASO also relies on sponsors to put their races on. Remember last
year, German TV stations stopped showing the Tour to make a point about doping?
Well I'm sure ASO does not want that to happen again, or the race to not be
shown period. ASO has shown that their muscle flexes much harder than the ProTour's,
and now they're using it to make their point about doping.

Complain all you want about it, don't watch the Tour this year if you've got
something better to do in July, I'm sure ASO took the half dozen US based fans
into account when making their decision and they are ready to pay that heavy
price. Consider their decision stupid if you'd like, but in the meantime, who's
put on a race year after year that is considered by everyone to be the greatest
in the world? That's right, it's ASO. I'm pretty confident they know what they're
doing.

And where was the outrage and 1000's of letters when the Giro excluded Astana?
They're not bringing their best guys is a good enough reason, but a history
of doping isn't? Give me a break. I'd like to find someone dumb enough to put
money on the fact that all of Astana's riders are clean. If you wouldn't, why
the hell do you expect ASO to do the same?

Passion and sponsorship

While I appreciate Mr. Barton's comments about finding sponsors that want a
return on their investment by appearing at the Tour de France, I can't help
but disagree. The biggest problem that accelerated the doping occurrences is
exactly that mentality. Team managers faced with the pressure from "big money"
to produce results began to take short cuts to guarantee those results.

The best thing that can happen to the sport is having those with money and
the passion to be involved. How can a board of directors understand what happens
in Stage 7 of the Tour de France? Do they care? Think of some of the major sponsors
of many of the teams - I can think of Credit Agricole, Quickstep, and Cofidis
of the top of my head - that have had long term involvement and understanding
in the sport. Professional cycling takes a special breed of athlete, and also
a special breed of sponsorship.

Where would we be without up-start stories like the continental team Barloworld?
I'd rather see them in the Tour than Astana. I know that in North America were
used to big million dollar contracts for athletes, and predictable schedules/results,
but I know several ex-professional riders from the 80s that were happy that
the sport provided a house paid for in Europe, and other fringe benefits. Andy
Hampsten has had a successful career and an enjoyable career after cycling.
Same with Steven Bauer and Phil Anderson.

I'm sorry, but cycling needs less "big money" and more "money from the heart."
While Michael Ball is not my cup of tea, I appreciate his support of my favourite
sport.

Good riddance to Discovery Channel and T-Mobile - never watched the channel
nor bought your phones, even though you had great riders in your ranks. Bring
on the wild card continental teams! Go LPR Brakes!

Crash or crash through

Cycling has reached its moment of truth. It will either crash or crash through.
To crash will see the sport return to being the bastion of the aficionado -
my sport will return to me!

To crash through will see this beautiful sport become part of the mainstream
popular culture. Commercialised, sanitised for the masses, but appreciated by
many more.

That cyclists have doped is a fact. That champions of the sport have doped
is a fact. If your boat is floated by defending Tyler or Floyd, that's your
choice. Knock yourself out.

My sport will survive. My sport will endure. Its audience might wane, but its
core will remain. My heroes will remain heroes and my villains will remain villains.

Charley Mottet is the cyclist with the greatest integrity. Eddy Merckx the
greatest full stop. Bernard Hinault the most aggressive. Phil Anderson the most
underrated. Lance Armstrong the most recognised. Greg LeMond the transformer.
Cadel Evans the reformer.

I am tired of the arguments. I am tired of the moralising and I am tired of
the angst.

In 2008 there will be some bike races. There will be winners and losers. Some
stories will endure.

Pro cycling is dead

I write this as a 15+ year fan of cycling and I have to say our sport is dead.

It has lost any relevance as a real sport by constant doping problems, it has
lost any relevance as a professional sport by the mismanagement by UCI/ASO and
WADA and most importantly it has lost its relevance as a sport since it has
lost me.

Not that I am that important but I, like many am a big fan, but I am sick of
this sport. Of the constant rumours of doping abuse without actual proof, the
constant Operation Puerto open/close issues and the constant trampling of riders
rights.

If I am giving up and am sure many others are giving up too. The riders are
abused by the UCI/WADA/ASO and the reason I watch cycling is for the riders,
not the UCI/AOS/WADA. I don't give 2 hoots about those bumbling, drunk, stupid,
ignorant asses who run these institutions not for the sport but for their own
press, publicity and personal ego. They are blinded by their inability to understand
the riders, they are blinded by their own definition of what cycling is to them
and they are blinded by the fact that they think they know what's best for cycling
without ever asking who matters, the fans and riders.

I want to thank cyclingnews for the years of excellent cycling coverage and
the unbelievable support of our sport whilst so many tear it down.

I am off to greener sport pursuits, not sure what that will be but it will
be a sport that puts the fans and athletes first, not the organizers of the
sport.

Why we must have the ProTour

The recent actions of RCS and the ASO not to invite Astana to any of their
races this season clearly demonstrates why we must have a ProTour like competition
for top level professional cycling.

Race organisers cannot be trusted to be above petty politics and self promotion
when it comes to selecting teams to compete in their races. Having teams that
have earned the right to ProTour status with automatic pre-selection to the
races in that competitions calendar is the only way to go.

Teams like Astana this year and Unibet last year have committed the dollars,
hired the riders and put in place the infrastructure to compete at the highest
level. To see their riders not able to compete because of petty politics is
a real shame and only damages the sport. How can a sponsor commit when there
is no guarantee that their team will be invited to all the major races?

I have seen no evidence that any of the big three race organisers can be trusted
to run the sport and not put their interests first. Whilst the UCI is in no
way perfect I do believe they do have the interests of the sport and its promotion
as their number one goal.

Unfortunately the UCI missed its chance when it caved to ASO before last year
Paris Nice. It should have banned ProTour teams from riding and forced ASO to
comply with the rules. On the upside I think if these organisers continue to
behave in this way the globalisation of the sport will leave them and their
races behind.

Rock Racing and Michael Ball

I thought I would never say it. After Michael Ball's announcement of Rock Racing
Team's roster for the tour of California, I'm starting to agree with this guy.
Like it or not, he may be just what professional cycling needs; he is someone
who could drag it, kicking and screaming of course, into a new century.

ToC and Rock

Shame on AEG for excluding Rock's riders. As a sponsor, how is Mr. Ball supposed
to reconcile having signed three riders that have been cleared to race with
the UCI but are not allowed to start in a UCI-sanctioned event? How can the
UCI remain credible if its own confirmation of a rider's eligibility is not
honoured by events it sanctions? Mr. Ball is rightly incredulous. He paid for
riders who are licensed to race and he is reasonable in expecting them to be
able to start any UCI event. It is time to take the power away from race organizers.
As the ASO and now AEG have shown, there is no recourse available to teams or
riders when these organizations arbitrarily dictate their terms while ignoring
the rules.

Bravo to Mr. Ball for standing up for his guys. I hope that he his able to
make cycling a more stable sport by wresting the power away from parasitic race
organizers. As he has pointed out, someone needs to create a league of cycling
teams that control all aspects of organization from ownership, to rules, to
race promotion and staging. Only then will self-interested entities like the
ASO and AEG be excluded from further screwing up our beloved sport.

The problem does not lie with the dopers: there will always be cheats. Instead,
the problem is the conglomeration of hapless leaders who lack the gumption to
set rules and stick to them. A sport that does not have mechanisms to gracefully
handle cheaters is doomed.

The hidden message behind banning Astana

I agree the Astana suspension is more about punishing Johan for his disco days
and has very little to do with the 2007 edition. When you dance with the devil
by hiring riders like Basso (in contravention of agreements you had with other
team managers) it comes back to bite you in the end (just ask Michael Ball!).

ASO aren't really saying the 2007 Astana aren't allowed in - they are saying
that they don't trust the 2008 team because of Postal, Disco and Johan from
'99 on.

ASO is killing cycling

It's not the ASO killing cycling but doping and shady team managers that have
accepted it as part of professional cycling.

As a cycling fan I'm sure that the Tour de France will be exiting to watch
even without "the best" riders. Hopefully I can catch more of the action when
the average speed drops to 36 km/h like we used to see in the 1980's, pre EPO
and blood doping.

What kind of Tour de France champion do we have who has been forced to sit
out two of three editions because of his team; first Liberty-Seguros and now
Astana? Think about it.

ASO could be right

I cannot help but noticed that there is almost unanimous outrage toward the
ASO's decision to exclude Astana. I'm sure that they have their reasons. I dare
say that a lot of the folks who howled in contempt did not yet realise that
the Puerto investigation was being re-opened.

This investigation has obliquely implicated Alberto Contador. Interesting...
Let's not forget also that Brunyeel's judgement is not exactly perfect. He did
hire Basso... after Puerto (a move which I predicted would be the end of Discovery's
sponsorship). And then he hired Contador... after Puerto. I am confident that
the ASO probably knows a little more about what is going on behind the scenes
than us mere-mortals do. Let's sit back and see what happens in Spain before
we start braying about how the organisers of the greatest sporting competition
in history are destroying the sport.

The real ASO problem

The real problem with ASO's decision to leave Astana off the Tour invitation
list is that they can't suddenly decide these things in February after all the
team rosters are in place. If they are going to enforce a strict rule against
doping (which is good, in essence) they should have told Astana (and everyone
else) in August. I guess I don't need to re-state the common knowledge of how
ridiculously unfair it is to tell riders only after the season starts "oh by
the way, that team you just joined, well, we don't like them (Bruyneel) and
we've decided no to let them race in the Tour this year" I can't fathom the
foolishness of this gesture! It kills cycling and sponsorship. There is nothing
else to be said.

UCI - draw a line in the sand

It's time for the UCI to flex its muscles and tell ASO, RCS and Unipublic just
who is in charge of cycling.

The UCI needs to use similar tactics to the FIA when the FIA demanded that
all race circuits put chicanes in on straights that were longer than 2km. The
organizers of the Le Mans 24 hour race refused, stating that the Mulsanne Straight
was sacrosanct and could not be touched. The FIA fired back that the Le Mans
24 hour race would no longer qualify in the points standing. Teams still entered
because Le Mans is the most prestigious race of its kind, they didn't care about
the points as long as they got the publicity for winning. The FIA fired back
saying that any team that entered Le Mans would be banned from all other competition,
the result was that the organizers of Le Mans relented and put 2 chicanes in
the Mulsanne Straight.

The UCI needs to employ similar strong-arm tactics with ASO, RCS and Unipublic
and threaten to pull the license of any rider who enters events organized by
these bodies unless these bodies follow the rules set by the UCI. Will riders
be willing to risk losing their license and enter these races, or will they
toe the line and leave the races with no riders?

If the UCI has the balls to do it, this action will draw a line in the sand
and we will finally see who is in control of cycling, the UCI or ASO, RCS and
Unipublic.

ASO has lost the plot

I don't agree with ASO's decision to exclude Astana from this year's TdF, and
I think it is bad for the upper end of the sport of professional cycling. I
suspect it has as much to do with the power struggle between ASO and UCI as
much as anything else.

The riders and teams are caught in the middle. How does a rider predict whether
he or his team will be permitted to enter a race promoted by ASO? As a sponsor,
how do you know whether you are sponsoring a team that will be invited to race
in an ASO event, and as a result how do you assess the value of the sponsorship
dollar you invest? Can you imagine how frustrated those riders and sponsors
of the Astana team this year, and Unibet last year, feel?

Is there a solution? I fear there is not. If the riders and teams were smart
they would, with one voice, say "invite Astana or you do not have a race - this
is unfair and you are ruining our sport". The riders and teams that have been
invited by ASO are probably not going to bite the hand that allows their sponsors,
and therefore them, to be fed. I think that is sad, as it really shows who has
the real power in pro racing, and it is not with the riders but those that control
the money behind pro racing.

I wonder (because I really do not know) WHY ASO has the right to host the TdF
and other races. What is to stop another organiser, say UCI, running a similar
event? Why can't UCI run "The Tour around interesting and hopefully really hilly
parts of France for 3 weeks"? Likewise the "Tour around hilly and interesting
bits of Italy". If there is a need to secure approval from government, why can't
such approval be given? The Promoters need to be put in their place, in my view.

The Astana affair

Pat McQuaid's recent comments regarding the ASO's brave decision to exclude
Astana from the 2008 Tour are surely final proof that he and the UCI have totally
lost the plot when it comes to dealing with the issue of doping. Given Astana's
record, not to mention the huge amount of controversy surrounding Bruyneel,
the ASO are perfectly justified in their actions. True, some other teams are
hardly 'whiter than white', but a line has to be drawn somewhere and ASO's actions
give a much stronger message to those teams who feel that organised doping is
perfectly acceptable than anything the UCI has done.

One of the most disappointing things about McQuaid comments is the way he has
resorted to justifying his position by means of blinkered, anti-French rhetoric.
Such attitudes have become one of the most distasteful aspects of the ongoing
war between the dopers and their supporters and those trying to protect the
future of the Tour and tackle doping. Anti-French xenophobia has become a staple
of the supporters of Armstrong and Landis, and no doubt the supporters of Leipheimer
will now be following suit. However, as president of the UCI McQuaid should
not sink to such levels. I wonder if McQuaid will also be criticising the organisers
of the Tour of California for their decision to exclude riders from the Rock
Racing team who are merely under 'suspicion' of doping in relation to operation
Puerto. Somehow I doubt it!

McQuaid's latest comments follow on from his claim that a 'mafia Western European
culture' exists which endorses doping and which stands in opposition to 'Anglo-Saxon'
culture which is opposed to doping. Odd then that the French (who doubtless
McQuaid would regard as being part of the 'mafia') have done so much to tackle
the issue of doping whilst he, as a shining knight of 'Anglo-Saxon culture',
should be taking sides with the dopers in the Astana affair. Thankfully McQuaid's
views are not shared by all, with the Giro organisers also choosing to exclude
Astana and other team managers refusing to act in their support. (And Bruyneel
could hardly expect other teams to support him after he broke the IPCT agreement
not to sign riders implicated in operation Puerto by signing Basso when he ran
the Discovery team).

The ASO may not be on McQuaid's Christmas card list, especially given the way
they have resisted the UCI's attempts to wrest control of the TV rights to the
sports major events away from the organisers in return for a pretty 'Pro Tour'
jersey and compiling a list of rider performances. However, McQuaid should reflect
on the fact that the need to exclude Astana has arisen largely because of the
UCI's flaccid attitude to doping over the years.

Howard Peel
East Yorkshire, United Kingdom
Thursday, February 21, 2008

Astana and ASO/RCS

I have a face saving way for ASO and RCS to allow Astana to ride in their races.
Either they, or UCI, require Astana to put up a substantial amount of money
(say $1 million?). ASO or RCS receive 25% of this amount for the first illegal
drug violation by an Astana rider in any race, the remaining 75% for a second
violation, and then the team is refused entry into RCS and ASO races following
a third violation. Why allow the first two? To allow benefit of doubt for accidental
use, race induced abnormalities, or laboratory error. Another option is to have
Astana pay for drug testing of all its team before and after each days racing.

This along with the biological passport should show the team to be clean or
not.

The Astana decision

I personally find it very good that the ASO decided not to let the Astana team
compete in this year's tour and other of its events. Should this sport have
any chance of truly being cleaned up, I think decisions like this have to be
made. Astana nearly ruined the tour last season with Vinokourov et al.

I think the point is to ban the people behind this team, not the riders and
if the riders had thought for a few moments beforehand about signing with this
team they would not be in this situation. I have no sympathy really for the
riders of Astana; it is time for teams and riders to get the message. Enough
is enough.

Operacion Puerto

It seems quite strange that no athletes from any sport other than cycling have
been named in Operacion Puerto. Have the Spanish authorities been singling
out cyclists or are the reports of other sports being involved merely fabrication?
And as for the ASO decision to ban Astana, well what can you say? Once again
they have shown how much they flip flop on the issue. Just be consistent with
teams whose rider(s) test positive, and make decisions across the board

Old rider classification

With the stunning return of Mario Cipollini from retirement in the Tour of
California at the age of 41, and a seemingly increasing number of older gentlemen
in the pro peloton, is it time to introduce an "Older Rider" classification
for stage races, in the same way that there is a young rider classification?

It would be great to see some of the legends who may have lost some of their
top end speed, but are still as popular as ever (think Zabel as well as Cipollini),
battling for their own jersey (though perhaps not a grey one). Think how popular
the Masters Tour is in other sports.

Recent letters pages

Letters 2008

February 28: ASO
vs. Astana, Passion and sponsorship, Crash or crash through, Pro cycling is
dead, Why we must have the ProTour, Rock Racing and Michael Ball, ToC and
Rock, The hidden message behind banning Astana, ASO is killing cycling, ASO
could be right, The real ASO problem, UCI - draw a line in the sand, ASO has
lost the plot, The Astana affair, Astana and ASO/RCS, the Astana decision,
Operacion Puerto, Old rider classification

February 1: UCI
vs. Grand Tour war, Best wishes to Anna, The incident, Rock racing & Starbucks,
Rock racing Rocks, Rock racing, Landis in NUE, Lance is the best of all time,
Sinkewitz logic, Astana for 08 Tour?

January 25: Rock
racing, Time to draw a line in the sand, ASO vs. UCI ProTour, UCI vs. Grand
Tour war spills over to European federations, Readers' poll stage races 2007,
Cyclist of the year, Team High Road's black kit, Lance is the best of all
time, Landis in NUE, Toyota-United abusing USAC team rules?

January 18: Cadel
Evans - returns to training, Cyclist of the Year, DOPING - time to draw a
line in the sand, Hincapie in T-Mobile kit, Lance is the best of all time,
Readers poll: best stage races 2007, Rock racing, Speaking about Lance, Toyota-United
abusing USAC team rules?

Letters 2007

December 14: Sydor's
consistency, George Hincapie, Helmet straps must be cinched a bit too tight,
Will there soon be a sample"C"test?, ProTour, Vino's joke of a suspension,
Mafioso McQuaid, Obee and Health Net, Mayo's B sample to get B test, Campagnolo
offers its own 'red' shifter, T-Mobile's withdrawal a blow to Jaksche